Web 2.0 in the Classroom

           The transformative effect of Web 2.0 is evident in classrooms across the United States and Gabriela Grosseck (2009) indicates, "Web 2.0 platforms are seen to have an emerging role to transform teaching and learning" (p. 478).  Teachers rely on Web 2.0 technology for daily classroom use. Blogs, wikis, podcasts, media-sharing, and social networking sites are vital to today’s classrooms.  Some benefits of Web 2.0 include “sharing accumulated experiences” and “creating digital content (especially media, podcasting, videocasting” (p. 480).  Today’s technologically savvy students enjoy collaborating through Web 2.0 platforms.

Podcasting and video sites such as Google Video and YouTube have been popular for showing, recording, and sharing videos related to content to students, parents, and larger audiences. There are many resources available on these sites. For music education, I use Google Video and YouTube as a tool for students to hear and see instruments from various countries, to listen to performances of symphonies and opera companies, and to hear ensembles of peers their age. We can also upload videos of our performances for family members to enjoy.

While there are many benefits to these websites, I have some concerns regarding their use in the classroom. Unfortunately, it is hard to monitor other videos that are shown in the side bar. I have had problems with inappropriate videos popping up in conjunction with Classical music videos when viewing the videos at home. Thus, I typically copy the link and access the video from Smart Notebook or PowerPoint during class. Also, there are generally advertisements that pop-up prior to showing a video or even during the middle of a video. This is annoying. Some schools block these sites, but you can often download videos for use during a lesson.

When uploading a video of student performances, it is important to have parental permission. If permission is given, I suggest blocking the comment section. I have seen many unnecessary comments posted beneath videos.

            Perusing through TeacherTube today reminded why I do not use it in my instruction. It is extremely slow and it took me a long time to access each video. Also, even though I know the content is generally safe, I was not impressed with the quality of the videos I viewed. Discovery Streaming is a much better resource in my opinion. I do not plan on integrating TeacherTube in my instruction when there are many more high quality videos available from Discovery Streaming that can be easily accessed at school.

Grosseck, G. (2009). To use or not to use web 2.0 in higher education? Procedia Social

and Behavioral Sciences, 1, pp. 477-482. Retrieved from

http://webpages.csus.edu/~sac43949/pdfs/to%20use%20or%20not%20to%20use.pdf

LiveText Field Experience Management

http://voicethread.com/share/2750906/

Livetext. (2011). Field experience management. Retrieved from

        https://c1.livetext.com/site_assets/pdf/Field_Experience_Management_7.27.11.pdf

Using Your Voice Effectively with Voice Thread

Voice Thread is a user-friendly way to create podcasts using voice, videos, pictures, texts, and annotations. The website is easy to navigate with many available tutorials. I enjoyed watching the humorous doodling examples and viewing videos that maximized Voice Thread’s possibilities. It appears to be an excellent technological tool to “keep instruction relevant and applicable to the word our students are used to and will inhabit after graduation” (Harris & Rea, 2009). I immediately began to think of uses for Voice Thread and was ready to try it out.

One of the many fabulous things about Voice Thread is that it is free for the user. It does appear that you can pay extra for a premium package with lots of benefits. However, the free option is amazing. Uploading multiple pictures, recording, and annotating was self-explanatory as I clicked on the buttons for each step.

Being a perfectionist, I was annoyed at having to make multiple recordings before I made a satisfactory recording. I ended up having to write out a script. Also, I do not have a wireless mouse. This caused my doodling to appear as the markings of a toddler in the podcast. If I plan on using the annotation on a frequent basis, I will need to buy a mouse. However, I was satisfied with my end product and cannot wait to use Voice Thread in my classroom and at work in the Office of Clinical Experiences.

As a musician and music educator, I am excited about making recordings and videos to share with students, family, and friends. Once I begin to make more personal recordings, I am concerned about how many people can access the Voice Thread.  I can limit the audience, but wonder just who could peruse my Voice Threads? Could original work easily be stolen? I need to do more research before posting or creating personal recordings.

Many times, I am not able to meet with all of our mentor teachers and liaisons. With Voice Thread I can create tutorials to explain new technologies that we are implementing as well as send out an informational podcast on updates to procedures and paperwork. I thoroughly enjoyed expressing “My Voice” by making a podcast using Voice Thread. What a great tool!

Harris, A. L., & Rea, A. (2009). Web 2.0 and virtual world technologies: A growing impact on IS
         Education. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2), 137-144. Retrieved from
         http://learningtechworld.com/Documents/Virtual%20World%20Technologies.pdf

What is Web 2.0?

“Web 2.0” is a term that was created in 2004 to describe the interactive ways in which users share information, communicate, and participate with one another in the World Wide Web (Bartolomé, 2008).  The term originated at a brainstorming session hosted by Tim O’Reilly and MediaLive International where participants discussed how the Internet was changing. At this brainstorming session, participants noticed users were creating websites that fostered interaction rather than mere consumption. Participants noted that the newer sites included “specific technologies like wikis and blogs, a new way of creating web pages like mash-ups, and a massive use of descriptors or tags in what as been defined as a folksonomies” (Bartolomé, 2008).

Resulting from this brainstorming session was an outline of basic differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. In Web 1.0 users view websites, create websites, and gather information whereas in Web 2.0, everyone can add and edit information on websites. Thus, users began to have bi-dimensional interactions with the Internet in Web 2.0 where they had previously had a one-dimensional interaction through Web 1.0. The six main ideas of Web 2.0 as indicated by Anderson (2007) are: “individual production and user generated content, harness the power of the crowd, data on an epic scale, architecture of participation, network effects, and openness.” These main ideas denote the many opportunities to interact via Web 2.0. Bartolomé (2008) credits this change to an increase in bandwidth. The increase in bandwidth allowed users to add an audiovisual component to Internet Websites that created an explosion of audiovisual materials on the Internet.

There are many products that represent Web 2.0 such as wikis, blogs, RSS reader pages, online office applications, social bookmarking, video repositories, shared documents and podcasts, video on-line, social networks, and group work spaces (Bartolomé, 2008). These products encourage user interaction and knowledge sharing. For example, a wiki is considered a ‘dynamic document’ because it is always under construction and can be edited/added to by the users. One of the most commonly known wikis today is Wikipedia. Wikis are also used in education as users create sites that have lesson plans, materials, and manipulatives by subject, topic, and grade level to share with one another. There is great potential for these Web 2.0 resources to impact learning. In fact, these Web 2.0 resources are just beginning to be tapped into for use in eLearning.

Additionally, Web 2.0 consists of social networking sites such as Facebook and Myspace. It is hard to distinguish whether some websites are Web 1.0 or Web 2.0. Some websites have characteristics of Web 2.0, but are not completely interactive and have been classified as Web 1.5 such as Friendster where users cannot interact with content as freely as Facebook (Cormode & Krishnamurthy, 2008). Tagging is another important component of Web 2.0. Bartolomé (2008) calls this tagging a folksonomy whereas a Web 1.0 directory is considered a taxonomy. The folksonomy allows more user integration.

As there are constant improvements to integration of “web page presentation, interactive data exchange between client and server, client slide scripts, and asynchronous update of server response,” there will continue to be an increased use in Web 2.0 products (Cormode & Krishnamurthy, 2008). The increase in Web 2.0 has created a new paradigm for eLearning. It allows for distance learning and promotes the integration rather than the separation of learning and living (Bartolomé, 2008). Web 2.0 is an incredible platform for current and future social interaction and knowledge sharing.

Anderson, P. (2007). What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education. JISC Technology & Standards Watch. Retrieved from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/techwatch/tsw0701b.pdf

Bartolomé, A.  (2008). Web 2.0 and new learning paradigms. eLearning Papers, 8, 1-10. Retrieved from http://www.elearningpapers.info/files/media/media 15529.pdf

Cormode, G. &  Krishnamurthy, B. (2008). Key differences between Web1.0 and Web2.0. 

The Nichols are Going to China

I have been reading Lost on Planet China by J. Maarten Troost as Joseph and I prepare to head to China for the summer. While it's probably not the most practical guide, I have not stopped laughing at Troost's humorous perspective on traveling to a new country.

Beginning Blogging

It's always nice to have someone/something push you to try something new. Due to a class assignment, here is my first blog.